this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
1129 points (97.5% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2487 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] doomer@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover.

You have your causality running backwards... this was already here, and the sulfur was masking it. This happened because we put so many GHG in the air.

It works, and without wrecking havoc on the overall system.

Europe is the one that initiated the sulfur reductions. With the additional dimming data now available, they reviewed it to determine how much damage had been caused. The conclusion? The benefits of reducing sulfur actually outweigh the damage of unmasked warming. The plan for further reductions was upheld.

If we mask radiative forcing, we don't want to be doing it with sulfur. That leads to acid rain, ocean acidification, and asthma and other diseases. CaCO3 is a candidate. The long-term consequences of any candidate is unknown. Except that we know that the less sulfur raining down on us and the fish in general, the better.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You have your causality running backwards… this was already here, and the sulfur was masking it.

Which is what I said?

[–] SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It was probably framing it like

Fun fact: All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover.

Instead of something like “we noticed the effects of climate change exceptionally this year because we stopped blowing sulphur (…)”. Yes, this is probably pedantic in a room where everyone understands anthropocentric climate change. Still, I can understand why some people might want to be extremely clear with how we use language regarding this topic, given… Everything that’s going on.